Last time I checked, there were not millions of children living in sheds, nor were there millions of children being dumped at shelters every year. I am also pretty sure that 4 million children were not euthanised last year.
Testing doesn't "prove" anything other than that individual currently isn't displaying signs of an inherant abnormality.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
just ONE of many examples there are and I'm done with this particular conversation.
PRA... progressive retinal atrophy. When we Optigen test our dogs.
Optigen A: normal/clear CAN NOT EVER PRODUCE A PUPPY THAT SUCCUMBS TO THIS DISEASE no matter what Optigen dog he/she is bred to, pedigree/lineage irrelevant!!!! Hence, I just proved your statment to be false.
Perhaps you need to look into testing a little more before making open statements as you did
I will not get into all the other testing, really there is just no reason as I assure you my years and years of being a professional breeder gives me the upper hand when it comes to this, sorry but true!!
***Edited By: savannah on 7/30/2007 3:10:17 PM*** Reason: *
No amount of pretesting is going to keep an animal out of a shelter."
I disagree, not surprisingly. A reputable and qualified breeder that does health testing would likely be the type of breeder that would never want one of his/her dogs to end up in a shelter. There would be a contract or something to that extent to guarantee that the dog would not ever end up in a shelter. The type of breeder that does not do any health testing at all, is also the type that is primarily in the business for money. They, on the other hand, could not care less as to where one of their puppies ended up one day. I suggest that next time you feel the urge to "push a button," try to do it in a way that makes you look more intelligent.
BlueDixie: To take your original question seriously: People with family histories of certain conditions, when help is available, do go through a fair amount of genetic counseling and testing before they become parents. Most of us have very little worry about, partly because most of us come from genetically diverse backgrounds. But for those affected, their circumstances can be compared (though not equated!) to those of purebred dogs, which by virtue of belonging to their breeds, do have "family histories" of certain conditions. When by "family" you mean the breed in general, since so many thousands or millions of dogs may trace back to the same small number of foundation dogs. You can keep shuffling the deck, but the same cards (alleles?) will always be missing.
Your question pushes hot buttons because people feel it's intensely personal, and nobody else's business, how they decide about having children. It's not surprising that some people feel somewhat the same way about breeding their dogs, and get their backs up when criticized for how they breed. Both kinds of decisions do impact society at large, and both involve global issues of overpopulation. The comparison will come up again and again. It's as understandable as it is unfortunate.
You know, there just MIGHT be something to that whole testing before producing off-spring! Why, if I'd have had my husband of 37+ years tested FIRST for genetic weaknesses, heck..my son and one grand daughter wouldn't have laxity of the ligaments and tibial torsion and I hate to say it, but my daughters and one grand daughter just MIGHT have by-passed those big feet they inherited from him!
Oh well, too late now.
"Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful".